• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama announces his Candidacy for 2012.

Right, and it only cost 5 trillion dollars to generate those numbers. Congratulations on outstanding results

Congratulations, Barack, another month where unemployment is higher than it was two years ago when you took office and it only cost us 4 trillion added to the debt to get there.

Wow, and yet we are still down over two million with a growing population and only spent 800 billion in stimulus to get those numbers.
Can you make up one single number already and stick with it?

:lamo


You must be so proud for after all it is only money and you probably didn't pay any of it.
Not sure what you're getting at but I pay my share of taxes.
 
You mean putting activists Justices on the Court that makes the laws instead of interpreting the Constitution?

Well you can't be much more activist than deciding on whether a movie about Hillary Clinton is a campaign donation and coming up a law that says corporations and unions can spend unlimited cash on elections.
 
No, cannot deny it but understand civics, Congress helped and Obama was in that Congress. Economists claim that TARP bailed us out and TARP was Bush's. I didn't support TARP but Bush signed it and Obama supported it.

It's not a "claim" that TARP was initiated by GW Bush. It is fact!!! You can say it. "GW Bush started TARP". Go on...I won't condemn you for it.

And yes, Pres. Obama followed through on what Bush initiated. He had no choice!

Bush purposely left TARP to be restructured once the next president assumed office. Bernanke (sp), w/Pres. Obama's oversight, made some modifications to TARP which allowed the Treasury, and by default the American taxpayers, to get back more of their investment in TARP than what was originally structured when Bush first initiated the program. In fact, just last week a few more banks made payments on their TARP loans.

The talk about evil Wall Street and tying that to Conservatives is the issue here or did you forget yours and others claims? The fact is Wall Street gave more to Obama than it gave to McCain yet I keep hearing about how Wall Street is in the hip pocket of Conservatives.

Again, campaign contributions isn't a partial issue of this thread topic. You're trying to make is such, but nope...not falling for it. Bring the thread topic back around...
 
What mistakes, not reforming Freddie and Fannie along with sub prime loans and packaging those loans? Oh, Wait, Bush tried that 17 times and was defeated by a non supportive? Guess it is easier to place blame than accept responsibility for the failures of this President whose numbers are worse than Bush's after the end of a recession.

Bush wanted to put Freddie and Fannie under the Treasury department so he could make them give 100% loans.

Edit: That's one reason Rep. Frank was against the reform.
 
Last edited:
Can you make up one single number already and stick with it?

:lamo



Not sure what you're getting at but I pay my share of taxes.

I know that results don't matter to you but here are the numbers

5 trillion, debt added since the democrats took control of Congress in January 2007-January 2011
4 trillion, debt Obama has added in 2 plus years in office
800 billion, the Obama stimulus plan passed and signed in February 2009

Get it yet?
 
Bush wanted to put Freddie and Fannie under the Treasury department so he could make them give 100% loans.

Vs. control by Congress? LOL, how did the current system work out?
 
the other key is to make sure that the disenchanted liberals out there turn up to vote!

yup, that's the way things stand

on the other side, we don't even have to make a phone call

good luck with your "exhausted from defending him" base
 
The recession we have was due to the financial collapse ...
Oh, my ...
"Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence. Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high. Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." ~ George W. Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech
Pssst ... He boasted about his homeownership plan (the one you cited as causing the financial crisis) before you voted for him again.

Results, not rhetoric ... right?


:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo​
 
=Objective Voice;1059390560]It's not a "claim" that TARP was initiated by GW Bush. It is fact!!! You can say it. "GW Bush started TARP". Go on...I won't condemn you for it.

Reading comprehension problem? I didn't say TARP wasn't created by Bush, Economists claimed that TARP kept us out of Depression. Yes, Bush created and signed TARP, October 2008, 700 billion of which Bush spent 350 billion and left 350 billion for Obama

And yes, Pres. Obama followed through on what Bush initiated. He had no choice!

How did Obama vote on the legislation? He had a choice to spend the 350 billion left him by Bush

Bush purposely left TARP to be restructured once the next president assumed office. Bernanke (sp), w/Pres. Obama's oversight, made some modifications to TARP which allowed the Treasury, and by default the American taxpayers, to get back more of their investment in TARP than what was originally structured when Bush first initiated the program. In fact, just last week a few more banks made payments on their TARP loans.

Where did the repayment of TARP go? Most of TARP has been paid back, where is the credit to the Treasury?

Again, campaign contributions isn't a partial issue of this thread topic. You're trying to make is such, but nope...not falling for it. Bring the thread topic back around...

I am simply pointing out that Wall Street supported Obama more than McCain as the Campaign Finance Commission will show and that is contrary to the view here by many who claim that Wall Street supports only Republicans.

I am really worried about your reading comprehension. You are proving to be a typical Obama supporter
 
Oh, my ...
"Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence. Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high. Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." ~ George W. Bush, 9.2.2004, RNC acceptance speech
Pssst ... He boasted about his homeownership plan (the one you cited as causing the financial crisis) before you voted for him again.

Results, not rhetoric ... right?


:lamo :lamo :lamo :lamo​

You sure have a lot of time invested in Bush hatred, suggest you seek help. Worthy goal, one that started by Jimmy Carter and supported by all Presidents. Nothing wrong with the goal, what was wrong with the Senate Oversight that didn't exist. Nothing in that goal about people getting homes they couldnt afford
 
What is the statue of Limitations on blaming Bush?
Seeing as how Bush was still blaming Clinton for the economy nearly 8 years into his presidency, I'd say the same should hold for Obama. Fair enough?
 
I'm in big favor of a capitalist economy and a government makes sure that the members of such an economy don't threaten the physical and financial security of the American population. It's really not that extreme.

LOL!

that's what obama said

BEFORE he tried to tax ENERGY, both production and consumption, in the midst of our malaise

BEFORE he pumped 2.7 tril into mortgage backed junk---UNDIVERSIFIED

BEFORE he "rescued" gm which leaves the us taxpayer on the hook for tens of B's

BEFORE he EXEMPTED fannie and fred from his reg reform, his #2 domestic prioirity which, like his first, he can no longer talk about

BEFORE he WASTED the better part of another tril on the obscene s-word he can no longer pronounce

remember when he told nymag in october that he's only just learned THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A SHOVEL READY JOB?

BEFORE he CRAMMED a radical redrawing of 1/6 of our economy via RECONCILIATION only days after he was prepared to DEEM the damn thing

how bout the time he told the sf chron that he'd work to BANKRUPT coal and electricity?

it's really not that extreme
 
Last edited:
Seeing as how Bush was still blaming Clinton for the economy nearly 8 years into his presidency, I'd say the same should hold for Obama.

that's as ridiculous as it is childish

grow up
 
Anyone other than me notice that when discussing the economic problems before 2008, Conservative faults the Democratic Congress, and when discussing the economic problems after 2008, Conservative faults the Democratic President. To me, there seems to be a rather hackish consistency in his argument... one reason why I pay no attention to what his argument actually is. Just thought I'd point this out.
 
For creating and saving 3.5 million jobs during Bush's Great Recession.

Even your savior himself stopped using that nonsensical talking point, once his own people told him they really can't prove it one way or the other. For you to use it as a reason to vote for him again is as nonsensical as the statement itself... more so.

I got that number from Conservative ... take it up with him.

The numbers came from CBO which was given them by the Obama Administration, that is how CBO works.
You're lying through your keyboard again, Con. You posted that Obama's stimulus cost us $228,000 per job. As I proved on another thread when you posted that lie there -- the CBO never posted that number.

You posted that number here, not the CBO. And at $228,000 per job x $787 billion, you said Obama saved or created 3.5 million jobs.

So you see, I got that number from you.
 
Seeing as how Bush was still blaming Clinton for the economy nearly 8 years into his presidency, I'd say the same should hold for Obama. Fair enough?

Bush isn't on the ballot, you really need to get over your BDS. It is the Obama results that have to be defended and when you compare the Obama results to the 2008 recession year and take into account the overwhelming control of Congress he had his results are a disaster.
 
You're lying through your keyboard again, Con. You posted that Obama's stimulus cost us $228,000 per job. As I proved on another thread when you posted that lie there -- the CBO never posted that number.

You posted that number here, not the CBO. And at $228,000 per job x $787 billion, you said Obama saved or created 3.5 million jobs.

So you see, I got that number from you.

I gave you the date and location of the CBO report that generated those numbers. You have a problem with the numbers? take it up with the CBO
 
Bush wanted to put Freddie and Fannie under the Treasury department so he could make them give 100% loans.

Edit: That's one reason Rep. Frank was against the reform.
Doesn't matter what Frank wanted, until 2007, he was in the minority party. Republicans were in charge until then and did not pass any legislation which might have prevented the collapse. I blame Republicans for that; just as I blame Democrats for not passing any legislation after they took over in 2007. But by then, most of the damage had already occurred. By 2006, the housing bubble was already declining, on its way to complete collapse.
 
Anyone other than me notice that when discussing the economic problems before 2008, Conservative faults the Democratic Congress, and when discussing the economic problems after 2008, Conservative faults the Democratic President. To me, there seems to be a rather hackish consistency in his argument... one reason why I pay no attention to what his argument actually is. Just thought I'd point this out.

It goes with what seems to be the prevailing Conservative view (meaning all Conservatives, not "Conservative"). If Obama does it, it's bad (Romney-care, breathing in and out).

I think "Conservative" should be forced to change his name to "Republican." There is a distinct difference. For example, I know many actual Conservatives who think Bush was terrible. Wouldn't hear that from "Conservative."
 
I agree about the bottom line and I would add that the Republican candidate has to come up with a clear and convincing plan for economy recovery and decreasing unemployment because right now just saying "we'll spend less" is probably too vague for most people.

the BUDGET CHAIR'S plan will NOT be vague

you're gonna have to DEMAGOGUE it, not DISMISS it
 
Anyone other than me notice that when discussing the economic problems before 2008, Conservative faults the Democratic Congress, and when discussing the economic problems after 2008, Conservative faults the Democratic President. To me, there seems to be a rather hackish consistency in his argument... one reason why I pay no attention to what his argument actually is. Just thought I'd point this out.

Doesn't look like you paid a lot of attention to the entire thread as I have repeated stated that GW Bush had help in creating the recession we had in 2008 just like Obama had a lot of help from the Democrat Congress to generate the disasterous results he has generated since being President. The Democrat President had a Democrat Congress to help him implement his agenda and the results aren't very good. Bush had a Democrat Congress that was more interested in regaining the WH than it was helping Bush prevent a recession thus we got a recession with a Democrat Congress and less employment and higher debt with a Democrat President and Democrat Congress.
 
Back
Top Bottom